Last I heard, "hacking" and DDoS attacks were illegal and against the law?

I don’t endorse illegal activities, ever, full stop. I speak only of the results.

Don’t speak or support what you’d be embarrassed to see successfully attributed to you on the front page of a newspaper. Everyone’s opsec streak runs out eventually, and anonymity should have bounds once you’re influencing the public sphere (politics, in this case).

(all of my political donations are public in FEC filings, even those I’m not required to disclose)

Do you also support exposing homosexuals who don't want to come out?

People have a right to privacy. Stealing private information is the opposite of freedom.

Only in the case where the subject in question is pushing public policy to hurt homosexuals while secretly being one themselves. Public figures are held to a higher standard of accountability, and a loss of some privacy is expected depending on how far your life dips into public policy and influence. The purpose in this case would be to expose the malicious hypocrisy.

You’re Average Joe or Jane? Of course not, not under any circumstances. Their bedroom is their business only. I can’t stress this enough.

> People have a right to privacy. Stealing private information is the opposite of freedom.

Higher level, to demand anonymity when pushing resourced ($$$) speech in a democracy is attempting to subvert the political system while avoiding recourse for bad faith intent and/or actions (my observations from a systems analyst perspective).

Nuance and absolutism are incompatible.

It sounds like you're saying the "ends justify the means".

Perhaps its not embarrassment that makes people want privacy, but fear of retribution. Consider someone living during the McCarthy era in the US. Speaking up could be career ending, and in the long run, if things had progressed to a more authoritarian regime, life threatening.

As one of the earlier posters said, I think many people see a slide into authoritarianism on both sides of the political spectrum. And it strikes me, that not being able to have secrets or privacy supports authoritarianism more than furthering democracy.

So are much of the protest activity (not in general, but many of the specific activities of this protest are)

One of the four pillars of ethical journalism is minimizing harm. Knowing if there are big and powerful donors may be important to surface, but outing your neighbors has no journalistic upside. It's all about tribe vs tribe at that point. If you publish this and target the mob at ordinary people, you deserve to be forced out of the profession, in my opinion.

Where are the "ethical journalists" trying to publish the donors of...

"GoFundMe allowed support for CHAZ/CHOP zone in Seattle even after murders"

Black Lives Matter - Los Angeles https://www.gofundme.com/f/h2tqv-black-lives-matter-los-ange...

ANTIFA Takes Donations (for NAACP) https://www.gofundme.com/f/antifa-takes-donations